Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Scurvy_Platypus" data-source="post: 5509316" data-attributes="member: 43283">And here's where we bump up against what I was referring to earlier... what the goal is.I think you're assuming that my goal was to promote players into Pathfinder.It's not.It's to create a simpler version of the Pathfinder rules. As I said in a previous post, that means that given the choice between a simpler system and "fidelity" (following the normal Pathfinder rules) I will pick simpler just about every time.When looking at the rules, you've got several.... let's call 'em choke points. Chunks that pop up and represent a required investment of time and skill/system mastery. Feats are one of those choke points, which is a subset of the overall problem of the character building minigame.The character building minigame is something that a lot of 3.x people absolutely love; conversely they hated that 4E (initially) took that away from them.But if you're looking at doing a simpler system, Feats are definitely something to eyeball. They affect character building, character progression, monster/NPC capability, combat... they're worked in and through the system like a cancer. Rebooting the Feats is something that has a lot of ripples, like throwing a big ol' rock as hard as you can into a small pool. I think the payoff is worth it, but again it depends on what your goal is.As an aside, when I think about some of this stuff (like feats) I tend to rely on the revamped CR system that was done by Upper_Krust years ago. I'll freely admit though that some folks disagree with his assessments and that it's not really clear exactly how he's derived his numbers in the first place. Nervertheless, I personally have found it to be a consistent and much more accurate approach to dealing with CRs. I mention this because the revamped CR system gives a basic "CR rating" to a lot of the different things that go into making up a critter (and character). As far as UK's system is concerned, a feat is worth .2 of a CR. In other words, something needs to have 5 feats before it's likely to have a measureable impact.Now of course, one thing a fair number of people will immediately object to is the fact that not all feats are created equal. Cherry-picking through 3.x (and possibly Pathfinder books by now) you can definitely have a wild range of under and over powered feats.The Feat system itself is a mess because there's no real consistency in what should be a Feat and what should be a class power or something. Over the years, everyone (including WotC) seems to have taken the easy out of just saying, "Ummmm.... make it a Feat and call it good."So..... yeah. Feats. They're a choke point in the system. Deciding exactly how you're going to deal with them is going to inform a chunk of the entire game.If you're wanting a "simpler" system because you want to introduce new players to the game, I'd recommend tossing them unless you're doing a "crippleware" version of the basic rules, where the intent is to force a player to move onto the "full" ruleset. The crippleware approach is a popular idea with many gamers and the approach that most companies are likely to take. Easier to only worry about maintaining a single gameline than 2 different rulesets.If you're wanting a "simpler" system because you love Pathfinder but find some of the bookeeping overhead too much, you can keep or toss them depending on what the bookeeping problem is in the first place.If you're wanting a "simpler" system but you love the character building minigame, keep Feats. It's a definite source of system mastery play.If you're wanting a "simpler" system but you love the tactical miniatures game, you'll probably want to keep feats but may or may not want to tweak them a bit.  Right here, you've got a few different assumptions going on.One, that "system mastery" is a goal that _should_ be taught in the first place. Not everyone wants it or like it. By expecting this to be a goal, you're basically telling a chunk of people that would be interested in rpgs, "Don't bother joining in, we don't want you." Yes, it's a designed part of 3.x and Pathfinder has certainly kept it. That's catering to the already existing gamer base and a select portion of people that might be interested in playing rpgs.I for example, loathe system mastery. Some might say that given the amount I've got to say on design of the game, I've engaged in it to at least a certain extent. That may or may not be true (especially depending on whether you think I have accurate points that I'm making or not) but I personally am _not_ interested in system mastery and it's what kept me from playing a lot of 3.x. And it's what keeps me from getting that involved in Pathfinder.Two, that system mastery can't be taught in a "basic set". That seems to imply that you're looking at a "basic set" as a crippleware and inferior version to the full ruleset. It's a common assumption made by gamers too. The thing is, it doesn't have to be. It just winds up being a different ruleset that's pretty similar in a lot of cases. Look back to the old D&D and AD&D lines. RAW AD&D was pretty different in a number of respects from D&D, even if RAW is only a mantra that became widely popular with D&D players with the advent of 3.x.Further, one could argue that the BECMI line of D&D books _was_ teaching system mastery, they were just spreading it out. Ryan Dancey has said that the D&D game basically shifts roughly every 5 levels. So what you've got is a few levels of a certain type of play and then the game changes and the player has to learn some additional mastery.A basic set essentially formalizes this and makes it explicit. The advantage to doing this is you can break things up into chunks that are more easily digestable, instead of the giant info-dump that currently happens. You buy a rulebook and you basically have a group of designers that have puked this mass of rules into your lap and leave you to sort it out.Three... who is it that's teaching system mastery? It's certainly not the game designers and it's not going to be the people that design a basic version of the game. In order for the system mastery to be "taught" as you seem to be suggesting, you actually have to _teach_ someone by saying, "Do this" or "Don't do this".3.x and Pathfinder design doesn't do this. It teaches you by allowing you to make sub-optimal characters and then letting the player watch them get butchered. You "learn" by continually being punished for failure.Now, sometimes within a group you'll have a player or a GM that actually _does_ teach system mastery. They've usually acquired it the hard way, or they happen to be some sort of freaky person that can "see" how this stuff is going to shake out.Right now, game design is lazy and generally doesn't teach system mastery. The rules are built with deliberate traps for players and later books compound this by having class builds that rely on crappy feats to stall a player and make them search through sourcebooks to try and find the fastest and least painful way to get the bits they need for that really cool PrC.I personally say, If you like the idea of system mastery as a core design element of 3.x and Pathfinder, fine. Actually freaking teach it. And since the designers aren't going to do it, that means _you_ the GM should be teaching it. Otherwise, you're basically sitting around watching some poor slob stumble around in the dark and getting smacked for making bad choices. The way system mastery is currently dealt with, it's the equivalent to having a dog and just hauling off and smacking them when they do something wrong; you don't bother giving a reward when they do something right, you don't bother telling them "No" or anything like that. Just smack 'em when they get it wrong. It's cruel and does nasty things to the dog and I can't help but feel it's got some similar effects on gamer's approach to things as well. If your goal is to "teach" someone, I don't think this is the best approach. You're basically doing all the work for them with no explanation. Try teaching a kid math that way and see how much they learn.Barbarian, Ranger, and Paladin are _not_ other "fighter builds". You can build a number of different kinds of warriors, using those 4 classes to emulate certain things. However, each of the classes have explicit design functions and play differently. If you're providing a class build, you need to provide 2 to 3 builds for _each_ class. That's because what makes for a "good" choice of one class doesn't make for a good one for others.Yes, this basically means that you'd potentially be presenting say, 10 classes and 30 characters.As for the level-by-level choice... I'm slightly confused. You're either providing a build or someone is basically doing a level by level choice. If someone follows the build, the work is mostly done for them. If they go level-by-level, they're either going to go complete free range, or they'll take a build that's basically want they want and will tweak it as they go; this is most likely going to be someone that's already experienced in the system in some fashion.Look, I'm not trying to be a jerk. I genuinely apologise if I'm coming across that way, that's not my intent. I have firm opinions on things and I'm going to state them firmly and do my best to support them. If I'm in error, I'm happy to learn from it; if the error is in fact a difference of opinion, I won't change my but I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that your opinion is equally valid.All of my posts in this thread aren't an attempt to beat someone over the head with my opinion or anything, but to clearly state what I see as a problem and how I'm attempting to resolve it. I recognize that not everyone will see some things as a problem, as well as the fact that their solution to the problem could be different and better. But without really coming out and being explicit and hammering on some of these things, it's easy to miss design issues. And make no mistake... poking at something like a "basic Pathfinder"? It's game design. It might not be as "in-depth" as developing your own completely unique system, or as sexy as having a "designer blog" or whatever... but it's still game design. The fact that it's happening with a system that's as well understood as 3.x is a bonus, as it means that a lot (not all) of the potential design problems have been identified over the years and various approaches taken to possibly resolving them.</blockquote>

Verification